Singer and Regan's Approaches to Animal Liberation - Assignment Example

Lecturer affiliation Singer and Regans approaches to animal liberation There are two main philosophical approaches that are debatable to the issue of animal rights: a utilitarian approach that is by Peter Singer and the right based approach that is put forth by Tom Regan. There is a difference in their arguments, which reflects a distinction, which philosophers draw between theories of ethics. This help in judging how right an act is by looking at its consequences, and those that judge acts either right or wrong in themselves, and almost regardless of the prevailing consequences that loom because of the action taken. Within this debatable topic of animals’ rights, singer does not hold the belief that there are natural rights and that animals do have them. Singer makes use of the rights language as shorthand for how we might want to treat other people in his arguments. Instead, singer argues that, when we put the consequences of an act into consideration when judging acts, it will be in order to put the interest of animals, primarily their interested to prevent any suffering, to have the same consideration to the same interest put on humans. That is to say, where one individual suffering either human or non-human is considered equal to that of any other, there is no reason that can justify one to put more weight to one of them. On the other hand, Regan’s approaches concerning animal rights are not driven by the ultimate consequences of the actions. Regan firmly holds the belief that animals are what he is referring as the “subjects of life”, for that reason who has the moral rights, and for that reason, their moral rights should not be ignored as such. He argues that animals do have one moral right and even a legal one, and they should not be as anyone’s property. Singers approach of utilitarian means that he is judging the "rightest" of any act by the consequences it attracts. Specifically by the extent that the act tries to bring satisfaction to the things that are affected, maximizing on the pleasures developed and pain minimization. Other forms of utilitarianism do exist such as rule utilitarianism. This rule tries to judge the rightness of any action basing on the usual consequences of whichever the moral rule the act has been practiced. According to Singer’s grounds, he clearly states that there exists no moral ground when an individual fails to give equal consideration of rights that hang to the interests of both non-humans and humans. His principles are based on similar treatment and equality accordance to both human and non-humans, and not consideration of interest on equal terms. In this argument, a mouse and a man have similar rights of not being kicked down the street just because when both are kicked they will suffer and no moral or logical grounds warrant them to be being kicked out. According to Singers statement, by failing to kick them out will be according both the man and the mouse their interest on equal weight. Unlike the interest of both the man and the mouse, a stone would not have the same suffering if kicked down the street and hence there exist no interest at all in avoiding its presence. Singer argues that the interests of both humans and non-humans are easily predictable on the ability of the being to undergo suffering and nothing else. In addition, when it is that a being has an interest in life, those interests must be accorded on equal consideration without judging whether it is human or non-human. In this case, according to utilitarianism, it is key to put the extent to which animals and other non-human things go through suffering ( Leopold, p. 71). According to singer commentators of either side of the debate, conclude that animals to go through pain and suffering. According to singer, equality that is seen to exist between human beings is not based on factual things but simply can be said to be on prescription. Hence, we should consider animals to have equal rights to human. Tom Regan argues that the moral rights of humans are from the fact that certain abilities are endowed in humans such as cognitive. Humans alone but also some of the non-human animals do not only possess these abilities. Hence, such animals must be accorded equal moral rights as those given to humans. Despite the fact that only humans are considered to acting as moral agents, marginal case humans like infants and some non-humans do have moral patient status. In this case, they are not in a position to come up with principles considered moral; because of this, they cannot do anything right or wrong. According to Regan, only agents considered moral can engage themselves in moral actions. The “moral patients” are considered not to be moral agents hence cannot do any wrong or right though their actions may be either beneficial or harmful. According to Regan, animals have values that are inherent as subjects of a life and cannot be regarded a means to an end. Regan’s theory does not extend to all the animals considered sentinel this only applies to those animals that can be as subject of life. He continues to argue that, all mammals that have at least one year of age in this regard qualifies. On the other hand, Singer seems to be concerned primarily with the improvement on how animals are treated. He accepts that, in certain scenarios considered to hypothetical, some animals may be used legitimately to enhance human or non-human needs and ends. Regan states that there is a need to treat non-human animals with the same rights and dignity as we would treat any human being. Like any other human being, animals too have emotional feeling such as pain, anxiety and affection. If at all humans do have rights animals should also be with the same rights. The fact that animals are different from human beings does not warrant their mistreatment. Animals should not undergo discrimination because they are not part of the human species. Animals should be with equal considerations with humans who under normal situations have the same capacity for suffering. Just like humans, animals too have sentinel, and they do experience what goes around in their world. They feel comfort and discomfort just like humans. I tend to believe that animals are in the same capability of feeling similar pain and suffering just like human beings. Therefore, they too have the right of not being the subject of unnecessary pain and live a life free from human exploitation. Just because human are in a position to that does not make them superior to subject other non-human beings to pain and suffering. It does not call animals to understand what constitutes rights, as long as they have the right to life and respectful treatment, they should equally possess them just as humans. I agree with the statement that animals should not be discriminated just because they possess different rationality form humanity. Having different rationality from human beings does not mean that man has to take advantage and have the right to use them against animals! Work cited Leopold, Aldo. "The Land Ethics." Ecological ethics: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1947. 71-96. Print. Read More